Hillside Updates Workshop 2
(DCA- 2021- 2396)
Item WS1.
March 5, 2024
Received After Agenda Printed
03/05/2024 - Regular Meeting
Item WS1 Staff Presentation
Directed by City Council in 2022 at annual priority goals workshop to address the Hillside Development standard
inconsistencies.
When the standards were initially adopted in 1997, they were applied on a citywide basis.
Why is staff evaluating
the standards?
3 Address inconsistent standards that may challenge
the interpretations of the current standards.
City’s Hillside standards and general height standards are overly complicated and not consistently applied.
Inability to streamline project reviews that are
consistent with General Plan and Development Code.
Why is the City proposing
these modifications?
2 The overall goal for these updates is to provide concise and accurate direction for all involved.
Why is the City proposing
these modifications?
4 5
6 7
CURRENT PROPOSED
• 319 parcels are developed and are privately owned.
• 179 parcels that are developed, are privately owned and are within an MSHCP Criteria Cell.
• 51 parcels in the study area are undeveloped and privately owned.
• 30 parcels are undeveloped, are privately owned and are within an MSHCP Criteria Cell.
• 25 parcels are undeveloped and owned by the RCA.
• 1 parcel is undeveloped and is privately owned by an entity for conservation purposes.
Hillside Areas - Mapping Exercise Updates
Key Takeaways
14 • 22 parcels are developed and are privately owned.
• 21 parcels are developed, are privately owned and are within an MSHCP Criteria Cell.
• 8 parcels are undeveloped and privately owned.
• 7 parcels are undeveloped, privately owned and are within an MSHCP Criteria Cell.
Prominent Ridgelines Areas
Mapping Exercise Updates
Key Takeaways
17 10
11 “Natural” Areas versus “Manufactured” Grading
- Ridgeline Discussion and Parameters
18 • Both the General Plan and Municipal Code address preservation of “ridgeline-related” visual resources covering both natural and manmade areas.
• Policy CSV-5.1 speaks to maintaining the aesthetic values of sloped areas in which the ridgeline would be a component of a slope where the ridgeline would be a slope component.
“Natural” Areas versus “Manufactured” Grading
- Ridgeline Discussion and Parameters
19 • For the Los Alamos Hills Area under LU-22.1, calls for the preservation of both natural and visual resources.
• LU-22.2 speaks to encouraging new construction and landscape design that utilizes grading techniques to mimic the natural terrain. • Again, the ridgeline would be an aesthetic component under both of these implementing policies.
“Natural” Areas versus “Manufactured” Grading
- Ridgeline Discussion and Parameters
20 • The Development Code calls for the preservation of significant visual features - whether natural or manmade.
• …structures shall not visually impair ridgeline silhouettes with setback criteria.
• ..manufactured cut and fill slopes with prominent and visible slopes need to be designed in a manner that emulates natural conditions. 15 PROPOSED ORDINANCE – TITLE 16
Topic Description
Building Height Less Restrictive – more flexibility for building height measurement as a result of sloped topography.
Retaining Wall Height Change in approach - more restrictive in non-hillside areas to improve aesthetics by eliminating walls over 12 feet in height, with provisions for additional setbacks, and landscaping requirements.
Applicability Change in approach – eliminates uncertainty by replacing a formula applicable to any property to properties that are predominantly greater than 25% slope.
16 PROPOSED ORDINANCE – TITLE 16
Topic Description
Prominent Ridge Definition Information only – establishes a reference map representative of the City’s past and current General Plan descriptions of significant landforms in the City.
Clarification of Zoning
Application Requirements
for Hillside Development
Adds clarity - Updates language adopted in 1997 that has never been updated, and that does not reflect current best practices for depicting information.
Slope Categories Adds clarity – eliminates code inconsistencies Site Design Adds clarity - Updates graphic exhibits and identifies reviewing parties for driveways/ roadways. Specifies use of landscaping as a recommended design technique with roadways.
17 PROPOSED ORDINANCE – TITLE 16
Topic Description
Architecture Change in approach – modifies existing building height approach to follow the proposed building height measurement change. Net effect could be slightly higher buildings, but with more cohesive architectural design.
Walls and fences Change in approach - more restrictive in hillside areas to improve aesthetics by eliminating walls over 6 feet in height, with provisions for additional setbacks, and landscaping requirements.
Graphics also updated.
Landscaping Adds clarity – adds objective language requiring consistency with specific standards already required and replaces other
terminology to eliminate conflicts.
18 PROPOSED ORDINANCE – TITLE 16
Topic Description
Grading Change in approach – requires analysis by a licensed engineer.
Eliminates ridgeline restriction for structure placement and adds requirements for landscape screening of structures instead. Other non-substantive changes made for clarity.
Drainage Adds clarity – makes non-substantive changes to existing requirements.
Public Safety Adds clarity – incorporates fire and building codes, identifies fire and building personnel, and establishes a requirement for secondary access or other alternative method.
19 CURRENT PROPOSED
20 o Utilization of vegetation (trees/shrubs) to help screen proposed structures.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE – TITLE 16
21 PROPOSED ORDINANCE – TITLE 16
Topic Description
Hillside Development
Guidelines
Adds clarity – updates graphics, incorporates references to the proposed Prominent Ridgelines Map, incorporates references to residential design standards elsewhere in the Zoning Code, eliminates subjective design suggestions and makes them mandatory, and makes other non-substantive text changes. Some grading requirement updates could be considered more restrictive but are likely safer and reduce the visual impacts of grading.
Exceptions New – identifies work or activities not subject to the proposed standards.
General Landscape
Standards
New – identifies a plant size mix of one (one) gallon and five (5) plants to be 30%/70%, respectively, for new planting, which would apply throughout the City, including in hillside development projects.
22 23
24 1. Receive a presentation by staff, discuss the Ordinance overview, and provide direction related to policy options under the proposed Ordinance framework; and
2. Receive public comments.
Recommendation
1. City Council – Ordinance Introduction – 1st Reading
2. City Council – 2nd Reading
Next Steps
39 PROPOSED - RETAINING WALLS
55 New Section §16.22.070.F “Retaining Walls”
o New centralized design criteria on a citywide basis for retaining walls. o Parameters for crib walls, keystone, Loffelstein walls, and other similar living wall systems are a design option.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE – TITLE 16
78 Pros:
• Flexibility to account for subterranean areas (i.e. crawl space areas below a stem wall).
• Flexibility for someone to have a covered elevated deck or balcony within this envelope.
• At steeper slopes, where the reference point is 10 feet or greater, the measurement envelope tightens as height
would pull back with the slope.
This would minimize the
overall height.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE – TITLE 16